High Court Rules Trafficking Victims Can Stay in UK

In a landmark judgement, the High Court on Tuesday 12th Ocotber 2021, ruled that victims of human trafficking should be granted leave to remain. This is a significant departure to the current system, whereby individuals who had been subject to human trafficking could be placed in the immigration system for lengthy periods of time while their cases were pending. In many cases, if the Home Office refused to grant leave to remain, victims would be sent back to their home countries, which may place them at risk of being re-trafficked. The majority of individuals seeking asylum in the UK are ineligible for benefits, and are prohibited from working or studying while their case is being reviewed. The High Court ruling would mean that victims of trafficking will be granted leave to remain if the Home Office does not appeal the decision.

For victims of trafficking, this is undoubtedly a major relief for those who wish to stay in the UK. The number of people this ruling affects is estimated to be in the thousands. The Home Office has until the 19th October to lodge an application to appeal the judgement. The ruling came about as a result of a legal challenge brought to the court by a Vietnamese woman who was herself a victim of trafficking and whose asylum case was ongoing. Between November 2016 and March 2018, she was trafficked and forced to work against her will in brothels and producing cannabis. In April 2018, she was officially recognised as a human trafficking victim, yet was charged with conspiring to produce cannabis in October 209 and was sentenced to 28 months’ imprisonment. Her immigration lawyers submitted a trafficking assessment referral in May 2019 but the Home Office stated they had no record of her. In July 2019, her records were found by the Home Office, yet in October 2019, she was detained in immigration detention.

Read more: IAS, https://is.gd/ZsytOn

Yet Again - Asylum Seeker Right to Work Policy Declared Unlawful

There has been another successful challenge to the policy on asylum seekers undertaking paid work. In R (Cardona) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2021] EWHC 2656 (Admin), the High Court has declared that Home Office policy on this issue failed to comply with the statutory duty to promote every child’s best interests.

The (no) right to work policy - The background to this case is that people seeking asylum in the UK are generally prohibited from working. Home Office policy is to allow some asylum seekers to work if there is a lengthy delay in resolving their claim, albeit only in jobs on the Shortage Occupation List. Those jobs typically require complex skills, educational credentials and professional accreditations. Being allowed to work in a shortage role is often of little practical benefit to a person who has been forced to flee their country of origin without any evidence of their education and work history. The law in this area is contained in paragraph 360 of the Immigration Rules and a policy entitled Permission to work and volunteering for asylum seekers, now on version 10.0 published on 4 May 2021. The present case concerned version 8.0, which had already been found to be unlawful in two recent cases.

Read more: Freemovement, https://is.gd/GlirsM

Home Office Admits Their Latest Immigration Plan Might Not Work

The Home Office has admitted that there is “limited evidence” to suggest that its new plans for the immigration system will reduce the number of migrant Channel crossings. The Home Secretary has made promises to reduce the number of immigrants crossing the English Channel as part of the New Plan for Immigration which she hopes to introduce under the Nationality and Borders Bill, which is currently under review in parliament. But in an impact equality assessment recently released by the Home Office stated that the reforms to the immigration and asylum system carry “significant scope for indirect discrimination” and “potential for direct discrimination on the basis of race”.

The government’s New Plan for immigration would see an overhaul of the asylum system. The Nationality and Borders Bill would make arriving in the UK without permission a criminal offence. The new plan would seek to “rapidly remove” asylum seekers who enter the UK via unauthorised routes and would grant them only temporary protection in the UK with limited rights for those who cannot be removed quickly.

Read more: IAS, https://is.gd/hXmE5X

The Nationality and Borders Bill further criminalises people coming to the UK to seek asylum. It does so by switching the emphasis from ‘entering’ the UK to ‘arriving’ in the UK. The difference is significant. Together with a combination of other powers, it means that people can be stopped from crossing the English Channel in small boats and turned away for criminal behaviour. If by luck they land on the English coastline, they can be prosecuted. But many such people will be asylum seekers, with a right to come to the UK and seek asylum. The proposal ignores the provision of the Refugee Convention (Article 31) that prohibits penalties being imposed on Refugees who enter or are present in a country without authorisation. The result is incompatible with UK international commitments.

Crimes of Arrival: The Nationality and Bill makes several important changes to immigration-related criminal offences. First, it introduces a new provision so that a person who requires entry clearance (such as a visa) under the Immigration Rules and who knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance will commit an offence (clause 37 of the Bill amending section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971). This expands the power to prosecute a person. Currently, immigration offences focus ion ‘entry’ to the UK. But ‘entry’ has a special meaning and presenting yourself on arrival or subsequent temporary admission to the UK does not count as ‘entry’. Further, in reshaping this offence, the Bill makes no provision for a defence under Article 31 of the Refugee Convention.

Read more: Adrian Berry, Cosmopolis, https://is.gd/glBXwm

Home Office Should Have Given Asylum Seekers Money To Phone Friends And Family

A High Court judge has ruled that asylum seekers who were being housed in hotels during the pandemic should have been given money by the Home Office so that they could make calls to their friends and family. The ruling means that the Home Office may be forced to backdate weekly payments to around 10,000 asylum seekers who were affected by their decision. Judge Farbey ruled that being able to communicate by phone was essential for “interpersonal and social relationships, as well as for cultural and religious life”

An earlier hearing found that the Home Office had wrongfully denied to pay for other essential living costs for asylum seekers housed in hotels. In August 2020 Home Office officials urged Priti Patel to make payments of £12.11 a week to asylum seekers in hotels to cover essential living needs. However, the recommendation was rejected with the excuse that “the asylum system already appears more generous than European equivalents and we do not want to further increase any possible pull factors”. As a result of the earlier hearing in relation to living costs the Home Office agreed to make payments and late payments of £8 a week to cover these costs, estimating to have cost £4 million. However, the cost of phone calls was not included as part of this which is why a separate hearing was required.

Read more: IAS, https://is.gd/iIuhI7

Two months ago, the Home Office withdrew all but one of its country policy and information notes (CPINs) relating to Afghanistan. New decisions on Afghan asylum claims were halted, and in the immigration tribunals, Presenting Officers sought adjournments in all existing cases. Where adjournments were refused, Presenting Officers indicated that they were unable to give any submissions as to the current country situation in Afghanistan, leaving judges in the unenviable position of navigating an uncertain country situation without any assistance from Home Office representatives.

As of 6 October 2021, this passive approach has ended. The Home Office has formally confirmed its position in two new Afghanistan CPINs covering the humanitarian and security situation and fear of the Taliban. These documents seem to confirm that there will be no blanket “amnesty” for existing Afghan asylum seekers in the UK. But they do make important concessions as to the risk posed to claimants on return to Afghanistan in light of the Taliban’s takeover.

Read more: Freemovement, https://is.gd/7CUuUs

UK Home Office Work Policy For Asylum Seekers Unlawful

The Home Office policy on granting asylum seekers permission to work broke the law by failing to adequately consider the best interests of children, the High Court has ruled. Ministers are being urged to take a “more humane” approach when considering granting people who are seeking asylum the right to work, after a judge ruled that its guidance failed to consider the “adverse impact” on the child when their parents are banned from working. Asylum seekers in the UK are not generally allowed to get a job, but they can apply for permission to work if they have been waiting for a decision for more than a year. Even if they are granted permission, they are usually only allowed to work in jobs on the Shortage Occupation list, which is comprised of skilled, mainly post-graduate professions, which make up only one per cent of the jobs market. Many asylum seekers do not qualify for any of these jobs.

The judge agreed with Mr Cordona and his lawyers’ argument that the Home Office’s permission to work policy for asylum seekers failed to meet its obligations in respect of the best interests of children. The Home Office has updated the guidance since the legal challenge was brought, but lawyers argue that the changes fail to rectify the issue and say they may seek to challenge the updated version. Mr Justice Linden said the Home Office’s guidance on the policy could “mislead” caseworkers into believing that it was “very unlikely that refusal of permission to work would impact adversely on a child of the applicant”, rather than consider the “actual adverse impact” on the child.

Read more: May Bulman, Independent, https://is.gd/A4ptgn

Home Office Decision Not to Fund Asylum Seekers Phone Calls Ruled Unlawful

A High Court judge has ruled that asylum seekers who were being housed in hotels during the pandemic should have been given money by the Home Office so that they could make calls to their friends and family. The ruling means that the Home Office may be forced to backdate weekly payments to around 10,000 asylum seekers who were affected by their decision. Judge Farbey ruled that being able to communicate by phone was essential for “interpersonal and social relationships, as well as for cultural and religious life”

Earlier Ruling for Essential Living Costs
An earlier hearing found that the Home Office had wrongfully denied to pay for other essential living costs for asylum seekers housed in hotels. In August 2020 Home Office officials urged Priti Patel to make payments of £12.11 a week to asylum seekers in hotels to cover essential living needs. However, the recommendation was rejected with the excuse that “the asylum system already appears more generous than European equivalents and we do not want to further increase any possible pull factors”. As a result of the earlier hearing in relation to living costs the Home Office agreed to make payments and late payments of £8 a week to cover these costs, estimating to have cost £4 million. However, the cost of phone calls was not included as part of this which is why a separate hearing was required.

Read more: IAS, https://is.gd/iIuhI7

French officials regularly subject adults and children living in migrant encampments around Calais to degrading treatment, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today 07/10/2021. Five years after French authorities demolished the sprawling Calais migrant camp frequently called the “Jungle,” more than 1,000 people are staying in encampments in and around the town. The 79-page report, “Enforced Misery: The Degrading Treatment of Migrant Children and Adults in Northern France,” documents repeated mass eviction operations, near-daily police harassment, and restrictions on provision of and access to humanitarian assistance. The authorities carry out these abusive practices with the primary purposes of forcing people to move elsewhere, without resolving their migration status or lack of housing, or of deterring new arrivals. “Subjecting people to daily harassment and humiliation is never justifiable,” said Bénédicte Jeannerod, France director at Human Rights Watch. “If the aim is to discourage migrants from gathering in northern France, these policies are a manifest failure and result in serious harm.”

Read more: Human Rights Watch, https://is.gd/d72bee

Migrants crossing the Channel in small boats are spending their first night on UK soil in crowded, unsafe and unsanitary conditions, a damning independent report has concluded. Exhausted people have been forced to sleep on tent floors without sleeping mats, on wooden benches and on bus seats with inadequate arrangements for food or washing, a report by the Dover Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) said. The report, which examined the treatment of migrants at Tug Haven, the short-term reception centre at Dover Western Docks, found it is increasingly being used to hold people overnight.

Describing the facilities as an unsuitable environment for children and elderly and vulnerable people, the report also discloses that an inquiry has been launched into how chemical burns on one migrant were not detected by staff. The board also warns that child welfare has also been put at risk at other detention facilities in Dover and Folkestone to which migrants were eventually transferred. William Baker, the chair of the board, said he was surprised the Home Office had failed to improve inadequate facilities given the growing numbers of migrants arriving over the last two years.

Read more: Rajeev Syal, Guardian, https://is.gd/IDxyE3